mr_genius

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 6, 2014 -> 02:37 PM) Very, very few honestly. People just don't wind up this way very often, and when they do people generally accept it. You're probably having your health insurance dollars right now go towards keeping a handful of people in states like this alive where they were covered by solid insurance when it happened, but you don't care about it because it's not on the news. And if you want to prevent it from happening...you should strongly support having the government work with people in creating end-of-life plans. It's easier on the family and on society. That's the end-of-life planning services that should have been in the PPACA but were termed "Death panels" and removed. the death panels were necessary, as I have said all along. anyways, i disagree with your first point. a lot of people will keep a corpse on life support waiting for a "miracle" if it is "free" to do so. keep in mind half the country doesn't even believe in evolution and they probably believe that the brain dead corpse can spring back to life at anytime with enough prayers and such.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 6, 2014 -> 08:57 AM) I helped push a lady who was stuck getting out of a parking lot on a side street yesterday. When she got unstuck, she drove right into a parked car. haha. that sucks

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 6, 2014 -> 08:12 AM) I think she's brain dead in the sense of there's no detectable brain function and currently all functions of the body including respiration are being driven by instruments. However, if blood is being pumped through the body and respiration is being sustained artifically then oxygen is being moved through the body to keep the tissues alive. That doesn't mean the brain can function, that doesn't mean there isn't significant damage already, but it is probably enough to slow the deterioration of tissue from this point. However, you're 100% right that there's no hope of recovery. At some point, yes, people will have to let go...but the question of how you can force people to do so is not open and shut. As I said, when it was a white woman in Florida, a significant part of the country thought a condition almost this bad which had gone on for half a decade should continue to be maintained indefinitely regardless of the cost, to the point that there were widespread protests and we had the remarkable spectacle of the Senate Majority leader, a trained M.D., giving a diagnosis on the Senate Floor based on a highly edited couple minute clip of video. I understand completely that the family does not want to let go and I completely agree that there's a point the hospital will need to force them to do so. But it's not a decision that should be made lightly and if the family wants to fight for now, they have that right. i agree

sweet. office is closed, nice day off. was ready to go in though. but i did just help push 2 cars that were stuck in the snow outside my house.

wonder who counted the dogs to know there was 120. seems like a lot.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2014 -> 11:03 AM) It's pretty chock-full of brogrammer libertarians who have massively inflated egos. i haven't seen an actual brogrammer in a while. those guys seem to be in software sales or project managers now-a-days. i don't think they could pass the programming tests tech companies use in modern days. actually, i guess the founders of most of these startups are likely former brogrammers, so you are probably right.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 3, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) go to a game with weather below -20 yea that is too cold. I was at the Bears / Packers game last weekend and I was OK, but it was getting close to my limits to how cold of a game I will attend.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2014 -> 10:51 AM) Why do so many people think this is something that doesn't make them look loony? Silicon Valley / San Francisco / Oakland start-up guys have some of the most douchey quotes and loony ideas i've ever seen. Peter Thiel is supposedly building a giant boat/island off the coast that will have no worker regulations and such, his own personal "slave ship" as it is lovingly referred.

It will be interesting to see how the Ashland BRT line works out (they are still doing that right?). They are gonna eliminate of two vehicle travel lanes (one lane in each direction) to accommodate the line. Oh, also, no more left turns. Might cause more problems than it fixes.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/g...g-protest/?_r=0 an interesting story i have been following a little.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 3, 2014 -> 10:32 AM) CTA Red Line extenstion, Yellow line extension are other examples of smaller ideas expansion-wise that could add more ridership and help reduce road congestion. Also would like to see CTA explore the express route to O'Hare, maybe by adding a third rail in places, to reduce the time of that trip. Not just for travellers and tourists, but also would encourage more people in the NW burbs to park and ride on the Blue Line, like at the Rosemont stop. I would rather see new rail lines for parts of the city that are totally with any CTA rail close to them, rather than extending the red or yellow line to the suburbs. but i guess that would cost a s*** load of money to add new subway tracks.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 3, 2014 -> 09:01 AM) I know I am late to this story. But, construction started recently and I've been looking more into it. I cant begin to say how much I loath this. As someone who has grown up in the Schaumburg/Elk Grove area, I see no real need for this. I just watched this video that shows the "improvements" to the Thorndale/Rohlwing Rd/I-290 area. They are turning that area into a massive spaghetti interchange. Blah! I cant think of anyone I've ever taked to who lives out here who felt this was an important or worthwhile project. Sorry, just needed to vent. I hate this whole project. looks like a worth while project to me. But what they really need to do is add an Irving Park exit from Northbound 294. Only have an exit from Southbound 294 is stupid and causes problems.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 29, 2013 -> 11:04 PM) Get rid of Conte. Please. ^^^

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2013 -> 01:58 PM) Vermont and Massachusetts are getting ready to sue CGI General, the company that they and the Federal Government contracted with to build their exchange websites. Entirely plausible that the Federal Government will take some action against this company at some point as well. Over the last couple months their priority had to be "undoing the damage we already did", but now that things appear to be working at an almost tolerable level, a legal response seems warranted. It wouldn't surprise me if CGI donated tens of millions to Obama's re-election campaign and his various personal slush funds. The bribes likely came with assurances that they would get billions in Obamacare contracts. Obama will protect them.

It looks like the GOP is primed to retake the Senate and expand it's lead in the House. Not because the Republicans have done much of anything, but the extremist Obama Regime's attacks on the middle class have turned people against the Democrat brand.

The Obama regime continues it attacks on the middle class, all while giving out unlimited free stuff and entitlements to billionaires. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/d...ct-human-urine/

QUOTE (farmteam @ Dec 11, 2013 -> 10:14 PM) Quite the argument. "His parents spoiled him too much, so he shouldn't go to to jail." http://www.newser.com/story/179005/teen-ki...l-sentence.html that is messed up

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2013 -> 09:49 AM) Executive and administrative incompetence, especially as they relate to IT projects, isn't limited to government though. haha true. I've seen some big time non-government IT disasters.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2013 -> 12:53 PM) Possessing an illegal gun = you get a sternly worded letter. Yup, that's tough on people breaking the law. i'm sure I am missing something here, but if they are illegal in the first place why did the state allow them to be registered?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 26, 2013 -> 06:36 PM) This is the part where StrangeSox comes in and handwaves away any anecdotal evidence. All while using anecdotal evidence to prove his point. Because his anecdotes are superior. .

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 15, 2013 -> 03:18 PM) any chance Bobby Jindal rears his head again? He's actually got a decent record to tout in LA the last few years. He will.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) He then became a registered lobbyist, Fox News contributor, joined a private equity firm, and also registered as a lobbyist on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. So yeah, he really cared about none of that. shady business on his part

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 13, 2013 -> 02:22 PM)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2013 -> 08:24 AM) Seriously? If you took the blinders off and looked past the Fox narrative, and looked at policy stances, you'd see it. Fiscal policy? Reagan wanted to cut taxes, and did, but he also increased spending pretty dramatically. Furthermore, he was basically the pioneer of block grants to the states. Huntsman's tax plans called for far deeper cuts in taxes AND government spending than Reagan even ever hinted at. Immigration policy? Reagan was in favor of amnesty, and basically starting over. Huntsman wanted, to a limited extent, to remove lots of people (he was never in on the send-them-all-back train though). Foreign Policy? Huntsman was close to libertarian in his views on this, wanted the US to significantly roll back the war machine. Reagan loved the idea of making the military bigger, to intimidate the Soviets and push them off the map economically through competition (and to Reagan's credit, this actually worked, as part of what caused the USSR's collapse). In the current GOP world, it is hard to say which of those are more "conservative", since the Tea Party has this unspoken alamgam of the Rand Paul's and the Neo-Cons. So draw whatever you'd like here. On social issues they were basically the same on abortion, affirmative action. Huntsman did break ranks on gay marriage, but really, there is nothing to compare with Reagan on that because the issue was never large enough to be on the radar during his Presidency. Regulation? Reagan talked about making things better for small businesses, but that was primarily about tax structures. The amount of new business regulations that went in during the Reagan administration is huge. Huntsman made an emphasis of trying to focus on regulating fewer things, better. The environment? This is a tough one to compare. Huntsman did break ranks again by acknowledging anthropogenic climate change... but his way of addressing it was heavily market-based. Reagan also was more into environmental protection than his cohorts at the time, and he oversaw large amounts of new protected lands being added to the system and more regulation of pollution - both of which are now the more "liberal" methods. Need I go on? Your analysis is foolish. I wondered why you love Huntsman so much, then I recently discovered that he is very active on MSNBC (I believe some of his family even works there). NorthsideSox72, rather than watching MSNBC all day and parroting DNC talking points and ranting about the Republicans, put the remote down... read a book, perhaps do some charity, anything will be better than what you are doing. You need inner peace. Anyways, here is the real Converservative comparison between Huntsman and Reagan 1) Patriotism: Conservatives like to consider themselves patriotic. Loony Huntsman on the other hand is an extremist. When asked about Americans losing their jobs, he started speaking Chinese and bragging about how China is superior and that he goes to China all the time. That is not patriotism. Reagan was a beacon of patriotism. America and Apple pie. 2) Religion: Most "Conservatives" are religious within a framework of what is the current norm. That's pretty much a standard of "conservatives" everywhere; they want to conserve the way things are. Huntsman is a member of what many would consider a loony outsider cult. That certainly isn't conservative. Reagan stated that he believed in what is the religious norm in America at the time (Christianity). A conservative move. 3) Taxes: Conservatives support lower taxes, Reagan sure did. Huntsman wants to increase taxes on the middle class. This one is a no-brainer on who is more conservative. Reagan wins this round easily. 4) Immigration: Reagan did give out Amnesty, which is not conservative. Huntsman wants to replace U.S. workers with overseas guest workers. But what Reagan did is a more conservative move in comparison, Huntsman is just loony on immigration. Reagan wins again. I could go on, but I won't. I think you know I'm right

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) Loaded question of course. But I thought Huntsman was that. He just ran at the wrong time. He's more conservative than Reagan ever was, but he was scoffed at as too liberal in 2012. Huntsman was one of the worst candidates I have ever seen. Totally unelectable. He couldn't even muster 1% support in the primaries. Huntsman, if he managed to win the GOP primaries, would suffer the worst electoral loss in U.S. history. Anyways, how is he "more conservative" than Reagan? Please tell us, NorthsideSox72.